Community

@MikeDoyle + 1. Open Banking, SCA, now this. Of late, EU regulators seem to be doing too much overreach.

In circa 2000, the ATM of a leading private sector bank in India supported a slew of features apart from cash withdrawal including statement, mobile topup, donations, etc. Today, any typical ATM in India - and, I daresay Asia and Africa - supports all these features plus train ticket booking, event ticket booking, P2P fund transfer, etc. But most of these non-cash withdrawal transactions take a lot of time and annoy people standing in the line behind. As a result, in actual practice, I reckon that cash withdrawal accounts for over 90% of ATM transactions. 

This causes an obvious dilemma for banks. More than innovation or 21st century, I think how a bank handles this dilemma will shape the feature set of its ATM estate.

One bank may say, why bother supporting so many features when over 90% customers use ATM only for cash withdrawal.

Another bank can say, there are 284 flavors of ice cream but over 82% of sales are for vanilla, still ice cream parlors stock different flavors, likewise we should ensure that our ATM supports many features apart from cash withdrawal.

Nothing right, nothing wrong. 

Yes, that's exactly what people would say before they start using a digital payment. But convenience is what they care about after they start using a digital payment. As I highlighted in Winners Don't Let Security Screw Up User Experience, "Security always wins when it comes to intent. Convenience always wins when it comes to action."

For ages, banks have been buying technology from the Accentures and IBMs and TCSs of the world. I call these companies "Fincumbents". They sold technology. They had no ambitions to go after banks' customers. They grew if banks grew, shrank if banks shrank, they didn't threaten banks with extinction.

OTOH, Fintechs came up with financial products. Their raison d'être was to take over banks' customers. They threatened to kill banks. Over time, reality dawned. They found the disruption mantra difficult to accomplish. They then started the partnership story. IMO, it's an acknowledgement that fintechs failed in their founding mission. It's lame. It won't work for more than one reason: (1) In what way are they better than Fincumbents? (2) VCs would stop funding them if they stopped chanting the disruption mantra. 

Fintech Shouldn’t Stop Chanting The Disruption Mantra

BBVA probably gains access to the Uber Driver's income via this app, basis which it can make targeted offers for loan products, etc. Not sure what's in this partnership for Uber, though. On a side note, it's interesting to know that people can become Uber Drivers in Mexico without having a bank account. Curious to know how they get paid when customers pay for Uber rides with digital payment methods. Although Uber accepts cash, I don't think it's possible to onboard the Uber network / app without a bank account in India.

Why "unintended consequence"? I thought it was an extremely obvious consequence, as I pointed out in my comment on "Most UK banks failing to protect online customers with two-factor authentication":

"What will happen to third-party PFM apps like Money Dashboard if the culprit banks implement 2FA".

On a side note, the US regulator FFIEC issued 2FA guidelines for online payments in 2005. The industry is still not ready for 2FA! Let's see when merchants in Europe will be ready for SCA!!

Banks vacated / never seriously participated in P2P cross border payments ages ago; Xoom, Western Union and other nonbanks have owned a significant portion of this market for decades.

Banks still own significant market share in B2B cross border payments. For the last 10 years, I've been searching for a nonbank alternative for B2B cross border payments in the USA-to-India corridor. I haven't found a single one - not even the new Blockchain-based ones. In other words, there are no / very few nonbank alternatives for this market.

According to initial reports, Libra will only focus on P2P where banks have limited presence and not on B2B where banks do have a dominant present. TBH, I'm not sure how Libra threatens banks. IMO, Libra is a bigger threat for nonbanks like Xoom and Western Union. 

If Visa itself analyzed 100% of transactions for fraud, why do issuers need fraud detection and prevention software at their end?

@DavidGyori: 

I said TARGET2 is for "businesses". What's the difference between businesses and "corporates"?

Besides, notwithstanding the average TARGET2 payment value of €7M, fact is, "two-thirds of all TARGET2 payments (i.e. 68%) had a value of less than €50,000 each" (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TARGET2#Single_Shared_Platform). This figure is much lower than I'd imagined. So, I'm now tempted to claim that TARGET2 is also for Consumers, not just Businesses:).

@BiancaMariaMorandi:

When I was involved in the implementation of TARGET2 for a Top 5 UK Bank circa 10 years ago, it was a realtime i.e. instant payments system. When I just checked, it's still an instant payments system. 

TARGET2 is the real-time gross settlement (RTGS) system for the Eurozone. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TARGET2)